AI & Law, Logic and Argument Schemes

This paper reviews the history of AI & Law research from the perspective of argument schemes. It starts with the observation that logic, although very well applicable to legal reasoning when there is uncertainty, vagueness and disagreement, is too abstract to give a fully satisfactory classification of legal argument types. It therefore needs to be supplemented with an argument-scheme approach, which classifies arguments not according to their logical form but according to their content, in particular, according to the roles that the various elements of an argument can play. This approach is then applied to legal reasoning, to identify some of the main legal argument schemes. It is also argued that much AI & Law research in fact employs the argument-scheme approach, although it usually is not presented as such. Finally, it is argued that the argument-scheme approach and the way it has been employed in AI & Law respects some of the main lessons to be learnt from Toulmin’s The Uses of Argument.

[1]  Van Eemeren.  Crucial concepts in argumentation theory , 2001 .

[2]  Donald H. Berman,et al.  Indeterminacy: A challenge to logic‐based models of legal reasoning , 1987 .

[3]  Kevin D. Ashley.  Modeling legal argument - reasoning with cases and hypotheticals , 1991, Artificial intelligence and legal reasoning.

[4]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Reasoning with Rules , 1997 .

[5]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[6]  J. Hage.  Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic , 1996 .

[7]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Arguing about cases as practical reasoning , 2005, ICAIL '05.

[8]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence , 2003, ICAIL.

[9]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[10]  Karl Branting,et al.  An Agenda for Empirical Research in AI and Law , 2003, Evaluation of Legal Reasoning and Problem-Solving Systems.

[11]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining , 1992, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[12]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[13]  D. Walton.  Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .

[14]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Ronald Leenes,et al.  Legal knowledge and information systems : JURIX 2000 : the thirteenth annual conference , 2000 .

[16]  Ronald Prescott Loui,et al.  Rationales and argument moves , 1995, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[17]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The Role of Logic in Computational Models of Legal Argument: A Critical Survey , 2002, Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond.

[18]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logics for Defeasible Argumentation , 2001 .

[19]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Philosophical Logic , 2002 .

[20]  J. Horty.  Nonmonotonic Logic , 2001 .

[21]  J. Pollock.  Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person , 1995 .

[22]  H. B. Verheij.  Rules, reasons, arguments : formal studies of argumentation and defeat , 1996 .

[23]  Thomas F. Gordon,et al.  The Pleadings Game , 1994, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[24]  L. S. Lutomski,et al.  The design of an attorney's statistical consultant , 1989, ICAIL '89.

[25]  Henry Prakken,et al.  An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning , 2002, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[26]  D. Schum,et al.  A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence , 1996 .

[27]  Bart Verheij.  Legal decision making as dialectical theory construction with argumentation schemes , 2001, ICAIL '01.

[28]  PrakkenHenry,et al.  Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence , 2003 .

[29]  Antonis C. Kakas,et al.  Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[30]  Jaap Hage,et al.  An Integrated View on Rules and Principles , 1998, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[31]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[32]  V. Wiktor Marek,et al.  Nonmonotonic Logic , 1993, Artificial Intelligence.

[33]  H. Prakken.  Analysing reasoning about evidence with formal models of argumentation , 2004 .

[34]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[35]  Paul Bergman,et al.  Trial advocacy in a nutshell , 1989 .

[36]  Maria Jean Johnstone Hall,et al.  The Development and Rapid Evolution of the Knowledge Model of ADVOKATE: An Advisory System to Assess the Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony , 2002 .

[37]  Thomas F. Gordon,et al.  Pleadings game - an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice , 1995 .